study wealth distribution: Gains of wealthy hurts the rest

[Truthmatters]

PERI: : Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families



The results of this study indicate that increases in the top share of income (whether of the top 10 percent or top one percent) lead to declines in the actual incomes (and earnings) of low and middle income households.

 

[Conservative]

PERI: : Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families



The results of this study indicate that increases in the top share of income (whether of the top 10 percent or top one percent) lead to declines in the actual incomes (and earnings) of low and middle income households.

A rising top share of income can potentially lead to increases in the incomes of low and middle-income households if economic growth is sufficiently responsive to increases in inequality. A substantial literature on the impacts of inequality on economic growth exists, but has failed to achieve consensus, with various studies finding positive impacts, negative impacts, and no impacts on growth from increased levels of income inequality.

dip shit.

 

[Conservative]

from the brief on the linked piece...

The ambiguous findings on the impact of inequality on the well-being of non-affluent households through the mechanism of economic growth underscore the need for a more direct examination of this relationship.

 

[editec]

PERI: : Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families



The results of this study indicate that increases in the top share of income (whether of the top 10 percent or top one percent) lead to declines in the actual incomes (and earnings) of low and middle income households.

I do NOT think it is a straight line trend, TM.

I think that in this system we have, we need to have an invesment class and a worker class.

If the investment class does not have enough money, if the consuming classes are eating up all the seed corn (in our case that seed corn is money) then it does behoove us to initiate SUPPLY SIDE policies such that there is capital for furture development.


This is, of course, not the situation facing us today.

Today we are imbalanced in the other direction.

One where the investment class has all the seed corn and realizing that there is no market for new corn harvests, they are NOT investing in future projects to the extent is necessary for a healthy economy.

We need to change the system such that those with all the corn start planting it again.

 

[cutter]

It's easier to blame the evil rich than take any personal responsibility because your a f'n loser. They went to college, worked hard, saved money and became successful and it's their fault because someone decides to skip school, get drunk, make baby's and complain society's unfair. Share the wealth, yeah, that's fair. BULL CRAP! You get out of life what your willing to put into it.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7104


This contains an interveiw with one of the proffs who did the study.

If you are willing to listen he will clairfy it for you

 

[Truthmatters]

They have proven it IS a zero sum game folks.

 

[Truthmatters]

If there is a class war in this country it is being waged by some of the wealthy and not by the middle class and poor.

 

[Bern80]

PERI: : Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families



The results of this study indicate that increases in the top share of income (whether of the top 10 percent or top one percent) lead to declines in the actual incomes (and earnings) of low and middle income households.

I do NOT think it is a straight line trend, TM.

I think that in this system we have, we need to have an invesment class and a worker class.

If the investment class does not have enough money, if the consuming classes are eating up all the seed corn (in our case that seed corn is money) then it does behoove us to initiate SUPPLY SIDE policies such that there is capital for furture development.


This is, of course, not the situation facing us today.

Today we are imbalanced in the other direction.

One where the investment class has all the seed corn and realizing that there is no market for new corn harvests, they are NOT investing in future projects to the extent is necessary for a healthy economy.

We need to change the system such that those with all the corn start planting it again.

Sticking with your analogy ed, people have to want the corn, otherwise what point is their in planting it. In other words there has to be demand. For their to be demand there has to be some level of certainty of wha the future will hold. Right now the investment class doesn't have that which is why they are hoarding the 'corn' taking a wait and see approach. Demand, in the economic sense of the word, is not just people wanting something. Most of us want new stuff. It's our financial situation that is preventing them from acting on those wants. This includes corporations, there are the ones that really need to start buying to get this kick started. The best way I can think to do that is to make it easier for them to do business. Reduce their liabilities to the government and remove some government red tape.

 

[Conservative]

a rising top share of income can potentially lead to increases in the incomes of low and middle-income households if economic growth is sufficiently responsive to increases in inequality. A substantial literature on the impacts of inequality on economic growth exists, but has failed to achieve consensus, with various studies finding positive impacts, negative impacts, and no impacts on growth from increased levels of income inequality.

why do you ignore the preponderance of evidence???

 

[Bern80]

If there is a class war in this country it is being waged by some of the wealthy and not by the middle class and poor.

No truth, it's being waged by you. The wealthy aren't involutarily taking anyone's money. But you clearly believe someone should take it from them and give it to the middle class and poor.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's easier to blame the evil rich than take any personal responsibility because your a f'n loser. They went to college, worked hard, saved money and became successful and it's their fault because someone decides to skip school, get drunk, make baby's and complain society's unfair. Share the wealth, yeah, that's fair. BULL CRAP! You get out of life what your willing to put into it.

At least you don't generalize.

 

[Truthmatters]

as the wealth concentrates to the top the standard of living of the middle and poor suffers.

Cry , cavil and lie all you want , this study has proven that with the cold hard exsisting numbers that have been measured in our economy.

 

[Claudette]

If there is a class war in this country it is being waged by some of the wealthy and not by the middle class and poor.

No truth, it's being waged by you. The wealthy aren't involutarily taking anyone's money. But you clearly believe someone should take it from them and give it to the middle class and poor.

Yep. I think TDM should be the first one to step up to the plate and give her wealth to the poor and downtrodden.

Then they can all sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya.

 

[editec]

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7104


This contains an interveiw with one of the proffs who did the study.

If you are willing to listen he will clairfy it for you

I do not argue withthe basic premise that a society with wildly imbalanced income and wealth distribution is bound to have problems possible so bad that it leads to an end of that society, TM.

My point is that that TREND is not a straight line.

Do you understand what I mean by that?

Of COURSE when the supply side has too much money things like BUBBLES and BUSTS are inevitable.

Investment bubbles are really INFLATION on the SUPPLY SIDE.

BUSTS are the market correcting that inflationary imbalance.

Sadly, VERY SADLY, the people who are most hurt by this is NOT the invesment class since even after th bubbles pop!, they typically have more than enough money to weather out the BUST periods that follow.

Its the workers, -- those people without the seed corn that they can eat through the economic famines! -- that are hurt by this imbalance between SUPPLY and DEMAND..

People, I presume, who are like you and I are.

People who depend on a job to eat and who really have no GOING LONG potenital.

 

[Truthmatters]

a constant boom and bust soceity ( which we had before glass steagal) makes it nearly impossible for the middle class and poor to hang onto any gains.

The wealthy can benifit both on an upswing in the economy and on the downswing in the economy.

They dont like regulations to mollify the dips up and down Because it makes it harder fro them to gain.

They still gain with a regulation mollified economy but it just harder for the wealthy.

They have to slow build just like the poor and middle do.

They prefer the large swings.

the large swings FUCK the middle and poor and cause them to use any gains achieved in the boom to survive the bust.


Its now been proven with numbers by this study.

 

[Truthmatters]

NO MORE BULLSHIT about it not being a zero sum game.

it is

 

[Truthmatters]

Note the cons are not coming anywhere near this thread.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They have proven it IS a zero sum game folks.

So you're telling me that because my income more than doubled in the last five years that other people are suffering for the sole reason that I made more money?

Bullshit.

 

[Truthmatters]

No, maybe you should read the study instead of insulting people with fake questions.